Britain's role in the world

[Azog 150]

I have been thinking about Britain's role in the world, and where it is taking us.

It seems to me that Britain has suffered from the belief amongst politicians and the population alike that we are still a major and influential power in the world. The attempt to try and make ourselves relevant in modern day international politics has landed us in several long, costly wars that have done little to further British interests. I am not sure that in the future we are going to be able to compete with the rising powers of the world for influence and we are increasingly being sidelined.

So I'm thinking, why do we bother?



I propose some fairly radical solutions:


We need to take a big step back from world affairs and realise we aren't what we used to be.

-Britain should drop out of NATO. Now the USSR has collapsed there is no direct threats to Britain's existence anymore, so what is the use of being in a multinational alliance, the membership of which has led us into Afghanistan? The only real threats to Britain aside from the USSR during the Cold War were/are outside NATO jurisdiction, or at least we didn't get much NATO help (Defence of overseas territories and Libyan funding, arming and training and private US funding of the IRA). I can't see any situation in the future in which our NATO membership will bring any substantial gain to Britain. In fact, the opposite, I can only see it landing us in more costly wars.

-Britain should drop out of the EU. Now I know there are economic benefits of remaining an EU member due to free trade and all the rest of it, which is why I would suggest we seek membership of the European Economic Area and the European Free Trade Association. This way Britain would no longer have to bow to silly EU regulations, and would not not have to continue funding EU bureaucracy and Eastern European backwaters etc. However, we would still be economically involved (For both British and EU benefit).

-Britain should drop out of the Five Powers Defence Arrangements and any other international obligations likely to land us in a pickle in the future.

-If we loose our Security Council Seat, so what? We probably don't deserve it these days, and our vote is usually just an extension of the USA's anyway.





Basically, we wouldn't be tied down by too many international obligations. It would be a kind of semi-neutrality. That's not to say we would break ties with our allies, its just we would be in better position to pick our own battles for our own benefit. I want to see Britain concentrate on internal policy and drop these delusions of grandeur that we seem to have.

Now probably my biggest concern for Britain and its future is our reliance on energy imports, and its also one of the main obstacles in the way of neutrality. I know this is a big problem for most countries, particularly in the West, but I want to see Britain actually do something about it. I want to see a big increase in funding for the renewable energy sector. Even if you don't buy into global warming, you can't deny the benefits of being largely self-sufficient in terms of energy.

There needs to be a big step up in renewable energy research and construction in this country, possibly using nuclear power as a temporary stand-in. Its the way of the future, and with many countries seeking an increase in renewable energies there is potentially big money to be made selling on technology and expertise overseas. There is a real opportunity to lead the world in this area, and one that we need to seize before its too late. Britain has a lot of potential here, and is already a leader in terms of off-shore wind. But that's not enough.

The money for this could come from the money saved from paying for international obligations, and I would also have the Welfare State greatly cut and make a real effort to save money though NHS reforms, and also a reform of the MOD's procurement situation. If I had things my way there would also be the legalisation of drugs and the inevitable revenue from that. There would also be money saved by being involved in less wars (Britain has been almost continuously involved in one war or another since the 1930's). Plus, as stated, there would be potential to make a lot of money in the ever-growing international renewable energy market.

This way we would be a country largely self-sufficient energy wise, and we would no longer have to bow to crappy regimes like Saudi Arabia or Libya for our energy needs. It would also greatly decrease the need for resource-based wars for Britain, and coupled with a lack of international treaty obligations would mean Britain could really pick and choose its battles, and concentrate on internal affairs.

Our Armed Forces would be primarily there to defend Britain and its overseas territories. I would see the defence budget not rise above 2% (Its currently 1.7%) and put more focus on naval capabilities in case Britain ever did decide to launch an expeditionary force (Whether by itself or alongside others). But long drawn out wars would be avoided at all costs. There would also be more focus on special forces which Britain could use discreetly (Ties in with the whole semi-neutrality thing)

Maybe in the future there might come an oppurtunity for Britain to put itself back into the forefront, but until that time comes we should focus on bettering this country and not worrying about trying to maintain power and influence in the world.



To be honest my post has been a bit of a ramble and I'm just throwing things out there so maybe I am talking out of my arse. But what would you think about Britain taking a step back from world affairs and putting much more into renewable energies?

Anyone else got a different vision for Britain and its future?

[Del Valle]

Demilitarize. Spend countless amounts in welfare and drown thyself in mindless consumption and self indulgence.

Wait, are we talking about the West in general or just Britain?

[Azog 150]

^^Britain

[Jaketh]

I agree they should the leave the EU. Britian should just chill and roll with America like it has these past decades

[Ardruire Iacób]

-Britain should drop out of the EU. Now I know there are economic benefits of remaining an EU member due to free trade and all the rest of it, which is why I would suggest we seek membership of the European Economic Area and the European Free Trade Association. This way Britain would no longer have to bow to silly EU regulations, and would not not have to continue funding EU bureaucracy and Eastern European backwaters etc. However, we would still be economically involved (For both British and EU benefit).

Not true. You still have to accept a certain amount of EU legislation, and elements of EU Treaties; all while having no representation in Parliament or Commission. If anything, that's worse than what you have now.

Not to mention the http://www.eeagrants.org/ that are paid to the needy EU member-states.

[Poach]

I very much approve of dropping out of the political elements of the EU and agree that NATO as a whole is largely unnecessary: it suits us currently as the integrated command structure lends itself to operating in coalitions such as in the current wars, but if we were to abandon the idea of remaining a major power we would no longer need it.

I should point out that, while we're no match for the likes of the United States, we still do operate the largest Armed Forces in Europe and, alongside France, a global reach. Your suggestions are, however, interesting: it is true that all the wars we have been involved in recently (since the Falklands) have had relatively little to do with British interests, unless you count support of the US as one of those interests.

Were we to carry this through, our Armed Forces would also have to undergo serious reorganisation: our military would have to change into an expeditionary force, which would emphasise a strong navy (meaning we'd need both those Carriers at least, as well as enough escorts to support them, along with submarines and troop carriers) and a fairly lightly equipped Army (tanks and heavy artillery are difficult to transport overseas) that operated primarily around the brigade level (~3000 soldiers could deal with most interventions we had to undertake, 1000 odd Royal Marines effectively turned the tide in the Sierra Leone war iirc). This is, infact, already largely underway or completed because fighting insurgencies (as we're doing) also calls for fairly lightly equipped, highly mobile forces and we already rotate forces in Afghanistan largely around brigades.


Your ideas have merit, Azog, and could work excellently, but the UK Government would never take this approach. They are firmly commited to retaining any vestiges of major power we have: that's why we pay for a nuclear deterrent we don't really need (we have the knowledge to build nuclear weaponry, if the world takes a dangerous turn and we need to re-arm in future we can), and why we participate in wars we don't really have a stake in (2nd biggest troop contribution to Afghanistan makes us look good, apparently). We'd only settle down into such a provincial outlook, if you will, if we get a government that is prepared to publicly admit that the UK is no longer willing to play an active role as a Major Power (by the definition of the term, we are in fact a major power) and wishes to adopt a neutral stance in the world.

[Azog 150]

Not true. You still have to accept a certain amount of EU legislation, and elements of EU Treaties; all while having no representation in Parliament or Commission. If anything, that's worse than what you have now

Britain doesn't make the most of its potential influence in the EU as it is. For the most part we sit on the sidelines and moan, and despite having representation we are still having unpopular things forced upon us. At least by leaving the EU's political sphere we could avoid the political interference in our internal political affairs.

Obviously by still being economically involved we would still have to accept economic legislation and the like.

If not members of the EEA and EFTA, perhaps an independent economic agreement with the EU just between Britain and the EU?

I should point out that, while we're no match for the likes of the United States, we still do operate the largest Armed Forces in Europe and, alongside France, a global reach. Your suggestions are, however, interesting: it is true that all the wars we have been involved in recently (since the Falklands) have had relatively little to do with British interests, unless you count support of the US as one of those interests.

Don't get me wrong, I am not saying we are completely insignificant or incapable of throwing a good punch. But as you say, I feel we haven't been using this bite to full effect and it seems to have been more an extension of US power then an independent force fighting for British interests.

Were we to carry this through, our Armed Forces would also have to undergo serious reorganisation: our military would have to change into an expeditionary force, which would emphasise a strong navy (meaning we'd need both those Carriers at least, as well as enough escorts to support them, along with submarines and troop carriers) and a fairly lightly equipped Army (tanks and heavy artillery are difficult to transport overseas) that operated primarily around the brigade level (~3000 soldiers could deal with most interventions we had to undertake, 1000 odd Royal Marines effectively turned the tide in the Sierra Leone war iirc). This is, infact, already largely underway or completed because fighting insurgencies (as we're doing) also calls for fairly lightly equipped, highly mobile forces and we already rotate forces in Afghanistan largely around brigades.

Agreed here. The MOD is in need of massive reform. The inter-service rivalries do no one any good, and the procurement system is a huge and massively expensive mess.

As you say, a small expeditionary force and a strong navy would be the back bone. We wouldn't be completely incapable of defending our interests overseas if need be.

Your ideas have merit, Azog, and could work excellently, but the UK Government would never take this approach. They are firmly commited to retaining any vestiges of major power we have: that's why we pay for a nuclear deterrent we don't really need (we have the knowledge to build nuclear weaponry, if the world takes a dangerous turn and we need to re-arm in future we can), and why we participate in wars we don't really have a stake in (2nd biggest troop contribution to Afghanistan makes us look good, apparently). We'd only settle down into such a provincial outlook, if you will, if we get a government that is prepared to publicly admit that the UK is no longer willing to play an active role as a Major Power (by the definition of the term, we are in fact a major power) and wishes to adopt a neutral stance in the world.

Alas, you are probably right. I don't know what can be done to kick some sense into our ruling parties. This is why I am a supporter of STV and Coalition politics- it would be a big overhaul and our two leading parties wouldn't be so nice and snug. I don't actually think compromise is that bad a thing when it comes to politics.



Although I wouldn't say we scrap our nuclear capabilities completely. We would need them as a back up should neutrality fail us, although I would support decreasing the deterrent. As you say its expensive.

in my opinion britian doesnt really need all that powerful a military, it has no immediate threats and has the backing of the US and its enormous military. a small expeditionary(cant spell) force would suit britian fine

This is the thing I want to avoid- over reliance on the US and/or Europe. I would be happy to see a maintenance of cross-training and that sort of thing, as well as intelligence sharing. But Britain should be able to follow its own interests without needing the US as back up. Indeed, if need be it should also be able to follow Britain's interests even if they are contrary to US interests [shock horror]

[Ardruire Iacób]

Britain doesn't make the most of its potential influence in the EU as it is. For the most part we sit on the sidelines and moan, and despite having representation we are still having unpopular things forced upon us. At least by leaving the EU's political sphere we could avoid the political interference in our internal political affairs.

Obviously by still being economically involved we would still have to accept economic legislation and the like.

If not members of the EEA and EFTA, perhaps an independent economic agreement with the EU just between Britain and the EU?

Explain that to Norway, who chose to reject full EEC membership but join the EFTA, and have plenty of unpopular things forced on them; only they don't even have the chance of representation to squander like the UK.

If limited nuetrality is what you're after, something approaching Switzerland's relations with the EU would be more appropriate.

The OP mentions 'delusions' of grandeur, but really Britain is a pretty grand country. We may not be what we were 80 years ago, but our influence is unsurpassed for a country of our size.

France.

[Copperknickers II]

France.

What about France? They are pretty influential but not with as much global importance as us, considering iirc we have marginally fewer people than them.

[Ardruire Iacób]

What about France? They are pretty influential but not with as much global importance as us, considering iirc we have marginally fewer people than them.

Not quite as much, but almost as much (given that the absolute majority of the Commonwealth is made up of India). However, militarily, they are considerably more powerful.

[Jaketh]

^^if the government is so intent on keeping its major power status then why is it dismembering its military? The british armed forces are a shadow of its former self

[Poach]

The Tories are cutting everything, Jaketh, the Armed Forces actually got cut the least. When the deficit has been reduced back to sensible levels, funding will (or, should, I think Labour might be in power by then...) be returned.

[Jaketh]

The Tories are cutting everything, Jaketh, the Armed Forces actually got cut the least. When the deficit has been reduced back to sensible levels, funding will (or, should, I think Labour might be in power by then...) be returned.

in my opinion britian doesnt really need all that powerful a military, it has no immediate threats and has the backing of the US and its enormous military. a small expeditionary(cant spell) force would suit britian fine

[Poach]

While the US offered some help during the Falklands war, it did not intervene militarily on our behalf. As such, I do not agree with your argument that we can cut our military on the assumption that the US will have our backs in any conflicts that may arise.

[Jaketh]

While the US offered some help during the Falklands war, it did not intervene militarily on our behalf. As such, I do not agree with your argument that we can cut our military on the assumption that the US will have our backs in any conflicts that may arise.

i didnt know that...seems like a dick move from the US seeing as youve had our backs on most our conflicts

[Imperial]

While the US offered some help during the Falklands war, it did not intervene militarily on our behalf. As such, I do not agree with your argument that we can cut our military on the assumption that the US will have our backs in any conflicts that may arise.

It also doesn't help when we have one of our most well known politician (Hillary Clinton) publicly backing Argentina.

[Copperknickers II]

The EU needs a bit of a rethink on certain issues, but it has the advantage of being a communal organisation. Alliance with America is dictated by whatever America feels it can get out of us, which often runs contrary to our own interests and is a decidedly one sided affair. The EU only works if everyone in it contributes: there's no sense in Germany ripping us off like America does because it has the danger of damaging the EU, which pretty much depends on Germany, France and the UK. Although we expend some money in terms of bailouts and the problems caused by immigrants, the EU is essential in enforcing sustainability and stability. America will not stay on top forever, and without the EU we would be truly relegated to historical dustbin if we cling on to that titanic nation, titanic in more ways than one. America cannot be trusted as it has shown time and time again, plus it is harming our relationship with growing powers like China.

The OP mentions 'delusions' of grandeur, but really Britain is a pretty grand country. We may not be what we were 80 years ago, but our influence is unsurpassed for a country of our size. The only countries in the world which can truly be said to surpass us undeniably are Russia and the USA. Germany's economy may be rivalling ours, but they have none of their own nuclear weapons, the Commonwealth gives us massive influence, particularly with places like India, Canada and Australia. Our higher education is second to none, with Cambridge now frequently beating Harvard to the top spot in many rankings, and of course we have London, the capital of the world alongside new york, although the latter does not have the prestige of being its country's capital or the historical centre of the largest empire in world history.

[Poach]

we would be truly relegated to historical dustbin if we cling on to that titanic nation, titanic in more ways than one. America cannot be trusted as it has shown time and time again, plus it is harming our relationship with growing powers like China.

This is what Azog was discussing: why are we so scared of that? It's already common knowledge that our power is largely an extension of US power and the EUs pathetic attempts at a military will only dilute our own. The British Armed Forces are easily the most capable in Europe, the French and German militaries may be roughly equal in terms of professionalism but not in capability: joining up into a larger EU force would only put our own men at risk by having them forced into relying on the militaries of the small, weak countries that make up much of the EU.

We're more than capable of defending our own turf (even when the USN says the recapture of certain islands is an "impossibility" ) when the need arises and recently all our wars have some valid arguments against our involvement.

The OP mentions 'delusions' of grandeur, but really Britain is a pretty grand country. We may not be what we were 80 years ago, but our influence is unsurpassed for a country of our size. The only countries in the world which can truly be said to surpass us undeniably are Russia and the USA. Germany's economy may be rivalling ours, but they have none of their own nuclear weapons, the Commonwealth gives us massive influence, particularly with places like India, Canada and Australia. Our higher education is second to none, with Cambridge now frequently beating Harvard to the top spot in many rankings, and of course we have London, the capital of the world alongside new york, although the latter does not have the prestige of being its country's capital or the historical centre of the largest empire in world history.

Maintaining all of this does not require continual involvement in foreign affairs. Azog is arguing primarily for a fundamental change in British foreign policy.

[Copperknickers II]

This is what Azog was discussing: why are we so scared of that? It's already common knowledge that our power is largely an extension of US power and the EUs pathetic attempts at a military will only dilute our own. The British Armed Forces are easily the most capable in Europe, the French and German militaries may be roughly equal in terms of professionalism but not in capability: joining up into a larger EU force would only put our own men at risk by having them forced into relying on the militaries of the small, weak countries that make up much of the EU.

Its not really in our interests to abandon our status as a great power. Why are you even here, if you hate our country that much? Why not go and live in Sweden or New Zealand if you value domestic focus so much. Its this kind of laziness and small mindedness which is why we are in decline, where is your sense of ambition?

[Azog 150]

If limited nuetrality is what you're after, something approaching Switzerland's relations with the EU would be more appropriate.

Thats the sort of thing I was trying to get at. I greatly admire Switzerland, and while I wouldn't take neutrality as far as them (Indeed, a country as big and rich as Britain would struggle to do that), I think Britain could learn one or two things from them

The EU needs a bit of a rethink on certain issues, but it has the advantage of being a communal organisation. Alliance with America is dictated by whatever America feels it can get out of us, which often runs contrary to our own interests and is a decidedly one sided affair. The EU only works if everyone in it contributes: there's no sense in Germany ripping us off like America does because it has the danger of damaging the EU, which pretty much depends on Germany, France and the UK. Although we expend some money in terms of bailouts and the problems caused by immigrants, the EU is essential in enforcing sustainability and stability. America will not stay on top forever, and without the EU we would be truly relegated to historical dustbin if we cling on to that titanic nation, titanic in more ways than one. America cannot be trusted as it has shown time and time again, plus it is harming our relationship with growing powers like China.

I don't think the UK leaving the EU's political sphere would make that much difference to European or British sustainability and stability. Afterall, despite our size we often take a backseat in EU affairs anyway.

We would still be economically tied however.

As for the dustbin thing- Poach's post kind of sums up my feelings. I think trying to maintain power and influence has been more of a hinderance then a help, and I think it would do us some good to finally drop the act.

The OP mentions 'delusions' of grandeur, but really Britain is a pretty grand country. We may not be what we were 80 years ago, but our influence is unsurpassed for a country of our size. The only countries in the world which can truly be said to surpass us undeniably are Russia and the USA. Germany's economy may be rivalling ours, but they have none of their own nuclear weapons, the Commonwealth gives us massive influence, particularly with places like India, Canada and Australia. Our higher education is second to none, with Cambridge now frequently beating Harvard to the top spot in many rankings, and of course we have London, the capital of the world alongside new york, although the latter does not have the prestige of being its country's capital or the historical centre of the largest empire in world history.

I think you overestimate our influence over the Commonwealth countries. Throughout the Commonwealth we have been sidelined by the US. Australia, New Zealand, Cananda and even India are far closer to the US then they are to us.

I do agree though that we should do more to branch out to rising powers like India. There is a lot of potential mutual economic benefit to be had. And if Britain did become a leader in renewable energies, as stated there would be lots of oppurtunities to share it (For a hefty profit of course)


As for higher education, I think its an absolute mess at the moment.